Scrutable

Russia have been banned from FIFA and EUFA competitions because of the country's actions in Ukraine. Is that racist?

In the 1980s, I boycotted South African fruit and refused to bank with Barclays. Is that racist?

It is regrettable that when we disapprove of the actions of a country's government, most of the actions we can take in protest adversely affect the country's population more than the government members and those with power who are actually to blame. But it is more regrettable in dictatorships where the population have little influence on the government's actions than it is in democracies where the informed population widely support atrocities carried out by the government, and who therefore share in the responsibility for those atrocities.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 4:18 pm

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 1:41 pm Unfounded accusations of genocide backed up by no legal judgments;

Steady on - the accusations of genocide are backed up by a decent swell of evidence, not least from direct comments of far-right members of the Israeli government that they intend to wipe Palestine from the map. Whether they are founded are not will be decided by the ICJ if and only if the members of the Israeli government for whom arrest warrants have been issued are arrested and put on trial, which is unlikely. Those arrest warrants have been issued on the basis of an accusation by a democratic national government backed up by evidence, and which has been decided to be plausible by an international criminal court.

I would point out that Wikipedia - a website very keen to avoid accusations of unfairness and which insists on rigorous referencing of statements made, especially contentious ones - introduces its article on the matter as follows:

In assessments of the Gaza genocide, experts state that statements by Israeli political and military leaders—coupled with eliminationist media rhetoric, and Israel's conduct in Gaza—indicate genocidal intent and incitement against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.[1] Genocidal intent is also evidenced by the scale and systematic nature of actions that exceed any legitimate military objective[2][3][4] — including the extensive targeting of children,[5][1] widespread sexual violence,[6] the destruction of cultural heritage,[7][8] and the imposition of life-destroying conditions[9] — together with the persistence of these practices despite full awareness of their catastrophic effects.[10]

Both a United Nations commission of inquiry and Amnesty International documented a "pattern of conduct" by Israeli authorities, concluding that genocidal intent is the "only reasonable inference" that could be drawn based on the evidence.[11][12] A United Nations panel also concluded that statements made by Israeli officials indicate genocidal intent.[13][14]

Multiple genocide studies experts[9] — including the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention,[8] Genocide Watch[15][14] and others[16][13][9] — draw attention to the multitude of verbal statements made by Israeli officials that dehumanize Palestinians and which incite, justify, or praise atrocities against them.[17] The United Nations commission of inquiry found that Israeli president Isaac Herzog, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former defence minister Yoav Gallant had engaged in the crime of "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" with their comments. Incitement to genocide is a stand-alone crime that is prosecutable even if genocide does not occur.[18] Genocidal intent and incitement have also been attributed to Israeli journalists and United States congressmen.[19][20]

If the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, and other important international organisations all state that there is intent to commit genocide, then it is not unreasonable for members of the public also to draw that conclusion. Any country, of whatever stripe, which carried out the acts which Israel has carried out in Gaza, and which expressed public intent in the way Israel has, would be criticised in the way that Israel has, and rightly so.

I would further point out that in Darfur, Iran, DR Congo, China and Ukraine, none of the aggressors are freely elected democratic governments or allies of the UK government. Given that, it is reasonable for people in the UK to use protest to pressure the Israeli government to stop what is reasonably described as a genocide.

Most of this is addressed earlier on in this thread last time it got derailed.

So just a couple of points:
You say - "not least from direct comments of far-right members of the Israeli government that they intend to wipe Palestine from the map". Direct quotes please, and the reference to the whole speeches. Last time this came up, it was obviously apparent that the attempt to put words in President Herzog's mouth failed as soon as one read the whole speech. Please read the whole posts on dolus specialis above. Dolus specialis requires clear and unambiguous intent, and actions that cannot be explained in any other way (see the ICJ case law I referenced earlier).

Compare this with the unambiguous remarks of Hamas towards Jews which are literally written down in their founding charter for all of the world to see and subscribed to by their entire leadership. These were acted out by the indiscriminate and barbaric slaughter of Israelis and Foreign Citizens, Jews and Muslims, and adults and children on October 7. If Hamas was a state, then I think allegations including dolus specialis would be very likely to stick.

You say: "Whether they are founded are not will be decided by the ICJ if and only if the members of the Israeli government for whom arrest warrants have been issued are arrested and put on trial, which is unlikely." This is totally incorrect. The ICC and ICJ cases have no connection whatsoever. The ICJ case does not stand or fall on anything the entirely separate ICC decides. Given that the ICC Chief Prosecutor is currently suspended on misconduct allegations and the published allegations imply that there might be a connection between his own legal troubles and his issuing of arrest warrants as a potential distraction, until that initial case of prosecutorial misconduct is sorted out and the arrest warrants re-examined, this is completely moot. For the ICJ, it is simply untrue to state that they "state that there is intent to commit genocide". This is a particularly egregious lie. Given that the President of the ICJ at the time immediately went on TV to explain to those who were parroting this line that this was not true, anyone who still repeats this lie nearly 2 years later has no excuse.

As for the UN - is this the same UN whose Human Rights Council spends more time bashing Israel than every other country it is supposed to examine put together? Neutral and unbiased of course. When they appoint a committe of investigation all with a documented history of antisemitism, what do you expect them to say?

As for Amnesty - well if your trusted source is the organisation whose Gaza researcher denouced peace activist Rami Aman to Hamas for the crime of a Zoom call with Israeli peace activists, which led to his arrest and torture, then your moral compass is completely out of kilter. (BTW that charming lady now works for Al Jazeera).

Then again maybe your comments are actually parody and designed to wind people up. I didn't think anybody still believed that Wikipedia is "a website very keen to avoid accusations of unfairness and which insists on rigorous referencing of statements made, especially contentious ones." That's the best joke I've seen on the web today - well done! I mean not even Jimmy Wales thinks that. The ADL published a long analysis of how Wikipedia is massively biased, but as it cites actual evidence-gathering and data that you can double-check, this may not be of interest to you.

Sorry if this is coming over as rather patronising and borderline insulting. I am very tired of people just repeating debunked assertions as fact again and again.

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 5:35 pm Russia have been banned from FIFA and EUFA competitions because of the country's actions in Ukraine. Is that racist?

In the 1980s, I boycotted South African fruit and refused to bank with Barclays. Is that racist?

It is regrettable that when we disapprove of the actions of a country's government, most of the actions we can take in protest adversely affect the country's population more than the government members and those with power who are actually to blame. But it is more regrettable in dictatorships where the population have little influence on the government's actions than it is in democracies where the informed population widely support atrocities carried out by the government, and who therefore share in the responsibility for those atrocities.

This argument only succeeds if it passes the "similar in fact and law" test, which any student of current affairs and international law could tell you it doesn't.

P.S. I spent decades of my working life in The Hague in an intergovernmental legal organisation (although thankfully none of the ones that are involved in this situation). My speciality is another area of law entirely. However, I have a good grounding in general international law and many friends in most of the big organisations based in The Hague. This is not an appeal to authority (since you do not know who I am or my actual qualifications), but just to note that I have a healthy mistrust of many IGOs (especially UN agencies) based on their governing models that mostly give one vote per state regardless of whether the states actually abide by the governing principles. When (as in the UN) you have 46 Muslim-majority states (23 of which declare Islam to be the state religion in their constitutions) and 1 Jewish state, you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that any pronouncements were neutral and unbiased.

However, you can ignore me and my bona fides or lack thereof. Attack the arguments with facts and evidence, and I'll try and respond.

I still have fond memories of the überthread in the old place, so have some affection for you all even when I disagree!

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 5:44 pm

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 5:35 pm Russia have been banned from FIFA and EUFA competitions because of the country's actions in Ukraine. Is that racist?

In the 1980s, I boycotted South African fruit and refused to bank with Barclays. Is that racist?

It is regrettable that when we disapprove of the actions of a country's government, most of the actions we can take in protest adversely affect the country's population more than the government members and those with power who are actually to blame. But it is more regrettable in dictatorships where the population have little influence on the government's actions than it is in democracies where the informed population widely support atrocities carried out by the government, and who therefore share in the responsibility for those atrocities.

This argument only succeeds if it passes the "similar in fact and law" test, which any student of current affairs and international law could tell you it doesn't.

Oh well, that's me told. Although I was thinking more in terms of ethics and simple humanity than legal tests. (Edit: not that either of those things are commonly associated with UEFA/FIFA.)

But back to the topic on hand. The report of Sir Andy Cooke on WM Police makes grim reading.

The report details gross distortion or fabrication of evidence, a basic failure to keep records to the standards required by the College of Policing, an utter failure of leadership, and the misleading of Parliament (over use of AI and the consultation with the Jewish community), as well as confirmation bias, and clear evidence that the conclusion was decided and then the story made to fit. It seems that in the name of community cohesion, they pandered to local antisemitic extremists.

The report states that there was no evidence of antisemitism relating to the senior officers involved. This could be true and it may be that WM Police's methodology in all investigations of all types is to decide who is guilty, fabricate evidence to fit their preferred narrative, and then cover it up when questioned (rather than just when Jews are involved). However, I'm not convinced this is a particularly strong defence. I can understand why the Home Secretary has no confidence in the Chief Constable - does anybody?

As I said above: "the simplest explanation in my mind is that these WM Police senior officers are utterly incompetent, in thrall to local extremists, and unfit for purpose." Today's evidence suggests that Occam's Razor wins again (and maybe Hanlon's too).

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 6:15 pm

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 5:44 pm

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 5:35 pm Russia have been banned from FIFA and EUFA competitions because of the country's actions in Ukraine. Is that racist?

In the 1980s, I boycotted South African fruit and refused to bank with Barclays. Is that racist?

It is regrettable that when we disapprove of the actions of a country's government, most of the actions we can take in protest adversely affect the country's population more than the government members and those with power who are actually to blame. But it is more regrettable in dictatorships where the population have little influence on the government's actions than it is in democracies where the informed population widely support atrocities carried out by the government, and who therefore share in the responsibility for those atrocities.

This argument only succeeds if it passes the "similar in fact and law" test, which any student of current affairs and international law could tell you it doesn't.

Oh well, that's me told. Although I was thinking more in terms of ethics and simple humanity than legal tests. (Edit: not that either of those things are commonly associated with UEFA/FIFA.)

The problem here is that if your "ethics and simple humanity" is based on a stream of debunked assertions from your echo chamber and the evidence behind these assertions doesn't stack up, then do they still apply? I have yet to see actual evidence that there is anything remotely comparable between (for example) the actions of Russia in Ukraine, and the Israel/Gaza conflict.

Anyway, I expect you're all sick of me now.

Accidental Double Post - you don't need two of my posts

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 6:23 pm I have yet to see actual evidence that there is anything remotely comparable between (for example) the actions of Russia in Ukraine, and the Israel/Gaza conflict.

I agree on this point... The proportion of child victims among total civilian deaths in Ukraine is approximately 5% whereas it's 30% in Gaza... and as we all know, 5% and 30% are very different and therefore not remotely comparable numbers.

If you don't see Russia, a country that wants to deny Ukraine it's own statehood and is taking away it's lands, as even remotely comparable to Israel, which is denying Palestine its statehood and is taking away land from Palestinians... then you need a trip to specsavers.

Hamas is a terrorist organization full of deplorables, we know, but lets not pretend Israel has no part in the sh.tty situation Palestinians find themselves in. As I see it both sides have bought this on themselves... both are equally guilty, but nothing excuses genocide.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 8:00 pm

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 6:23 pm I have yet to see actual evidence that there is anything remotely comparable between (for example) the actions of Russia in Ukraine, and the Israel/Gaza conflict.

I agree on this point... The proportion of child victims among total civilian deaths in Ukraine is approximately 5% whereas it's 30% in Gaza... and as we all know, 5% and 30% are very different and therefore not remotely comparable numbers.

If you don't see Russia, a country that wants to deny Ukraine it's own statehood and is taking away it's lands, as even remotely comparable to Israel, which is denying Palestine its statehood and is taking away land from Palestinians... then you need a trip to specsavers.

Hamas is a terrorist organization full of deplorables, we know, but lets not pretend Israel has no part in the sh.tty situation Palestinians find themselves in. As I see it both sides have bought this on themselves... both are equally guilty, but nothing excuses genocide.

Source please. Given that Hamas claims all deaths are civilians, that many of the numbers are unverified, that statistical analysis of the claimed figures shows disparities, and that Hamas uses (and acknowledges them as martyrs) child soldiers as combatants, the situations are not comparable.

Ukraine is not an urban warfare situation, so any comparison is flawed.

Also in Ukraine the civilian population protects its children by sheltering them, rather than protecting its combatants with human shields (women and children) as Hamas does. So you are indeed comparing apples and elephants.

Please read the analyses I linked to before from actual experts in urban warfare, These demonstrate with actual evidence (I know - controversial) that Israel’s actions are unprecedented in urban warfare in trying to avoid the tragic loss of civilian life.

Again, just saying “genocide” doesn’t make it true however much you want it to be to justify your position.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 8:00 pm Israel, which is denying Palestine its statehood and is taking away land from Palestinians... then you need a trip to specsavers.

Specsavers would be a good call for you, and then maybe Waterstones for a decent history of the area which would explain why this statement is bunk. Israel has demonstrably given up land for peace on multiple occasions (e.g. the whole Sinai peninsula) and has offered deals on multiple occasions but has always been rebuffed by an absolutist position from the other side that they want it all. No commitment to peace = no state possible. Golda Meir’s quote I mentioned earlier is as apposite today as it was was then.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 9:19 am

bob sterman wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 6:33 pm If people started targetting Chinese tourists because of the actions of the Chinese state would you call that racism?

AvP has already made the point here... Race is not the same as nationality.

If a group of people started targeting Chinese nationals then that's not racism... expand that to anyone of Chinese ethnicity then it becomes racism.

WMP did not ban Jews from attending the match... Presumably Aston Villa had Jewish fans in attendance. WMP banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and that's not antisemitism.

I think we've got our lines crossed here. Maybe you were talking directly about the behaviour of WMP. However, in the first part of my comment I tried to make it clear was referring to the behaviour of individual people - not the WMP...

bob sterman wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 6:33 pm Errr...are you referring to the possibility of local people targetting Israeli individuals because of the actions of the Israeli state?? And WMP acting because of the risk of that?? And you think targetting of individuals (that the police sought to prevent with the ban) wouldn't fall into the category of antisemitism?

If people started targetting Chinese tourists because of the actions of the Chinese state would you call that racism?

So the analogy I was trying to get at was this...

If local people started to target Chinese tourists (likely based on appearance) I would argue that this would be racism. Then if a police service banned people with Chinese nationality from visiting - to protect them from this racism - that wouldn't be racism itself but it would be unacceptable.

bob sterman wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 9:41 pm Then if a police service banned people with Chinese nationality from visiting - to protect them from this racism - that wouldn't be racism itself but it would be unacceptable.

Sorry to be a bore but as mentioned earlier, according to UK law that would be racism.

“Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986” wrote:
Meaning of “racial hatred”.
In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

That's a definition of hatred. If someone (the police eg) do something to someone to protect them, that's surely not necessarily hatred.

Si_B wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 10:59 pm

bob sterman wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 9:41 pm Then if a police service banned people with Chinese nationality from visiting - to protect them from this racism - that wouldn't be racism itself but it would be unacceptable.

Sorry to be a bore but as mentioned earlier, according to UK law that would be racism.

“Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986” wrote:
Meaning of “racial hatred”.
In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Yes - agree - it could be racism but I think under a different law. I think Police banning people of a particular nationality would be an act covered by the Equality Act (as a form of discrimination) rather than the Public Order Act (as behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred) - but the Equality Act similarly defines race as including "colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins."

bob sterman wrote: Thu Jan 15, 2026 7:22 am Yes - agree - it could be racism but I think under a different law. I think Police banning people of a particular nationality would be an act covered by the Equality Act (as a form of discrimination) rather than the Public Order Act (as behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred) - but the Equality Act similarly defines race as including "colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins."

Fair point - I was thinking in terms of the local thugs in the Villa area stirring up trouble because the visitors were Israelis (whilst pretending it was only about football), but in the context of your example, the Equality Act might be a better fit. Anyway, it seems we're agreed that UK Law describes this as discrimination consistently in both acts.

Back to the OP - I can't believe that it appears that Guildford appears to be digging in and refusing to go. He has zero credibility.

Anecdata alert: I don't know anyone in WM Police, but contacts in a couple of other forces are horrified. The discussion is less about whether it was the right decision (I think everyone can see it was a difficult situation so there is a bit of "There but for the grace of God go I"), but there seems a fairly strong view that deciding your preferred endpoint, fitting the evidence to justify it, and then covering it up (badly) is not a good look for any police officer, let alone one who leads a force.

Historically the WM police were violent pigs who enjoyed fighting at football matches

Si_B wrote: Thu Jan 15, 2026 8:59 am Back to the OP - I can't believe that it appears that Guildford appears to be digging in and refusing to go. He has zero credibility.

After lying he's finally confessed to using Microsoft Copilot to prepare his report - which apparently hallucinated various "facts" to support the ban.

It certainly hallucinated a non-existent match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham. AI hallucination could also perhaps be the source of the sinister sounding claim that "over 200" of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam were "linked to the Israeli Defence Forces" which the media then ran with.

Given that most LLMs have been trained on sources including social media - it should hardly be surprsing that they spew out sinister / conspiratorial claims about people from Israel.

It's worth noting some of the false, exaggerated claims about event in Amsterdam - which were picked up in the media - have been repeated in this thread. Not going to single out the posts but on the idea that Tel Aviv fans rampaged through the city tearing down flags and burning them - the HMICFRS report says this...

“[The 500–600 Maccabi fans] tearing down Palestine flags” This exaggerates the information the Dutch police told us they provided to WMP and the evidence available from official reports. The Dutch police told us one Palestinian flag had been pulled down. In official Dutch reports, there are three recorded incidents involving flags. I believe it would have been more appropriate to have accurately specified these three incidents, given their inflammatory nature.

Game over for West Midlands chief constable — he must now resign

The Times wrote: In addition to being chief constable of West ­Midlands police, Craig Guildford is the “national police chiefs’ lead for professional standards and ethics, and complaints and misconduct”. Given that expertise, it might be imagined Mr Guildford would understand instinctively when it was no longer tenable for a senior police officer to remain in post following a fiasco with national and international ramifications.

Unfortunately, that was not the case on Wednesday when Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, informed the House of ­Commons that Mr Guildford no longer enjoyed her confidence. For now he technically remains the head of one of Britain’s biggest police forces. But only technically. Mr Guildford’s credibility is shot; his departure is a matter of time.

Oof.

Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, gave a lecture earlier this week on the subject of "The Lessons of Bondi Beach: Terrorism, Hatred and the Law". He considers the relevance of hate speech to terrorism; that conventions concerning collective hostility on the basis of race or nationality have been ignored in the case of Jews and Israelis; and finally he suggests what the law might do about it.

A transcript is available at this link. It makes interesting points relevant to this discussion.

One of his conclusions is:

"It should be possible for marches to be held against Israel’s actions in Gaza without hatred, but the scorecard in avoiding hatred is not good. " Serious disorder cannot be the only basis for restricting marches." When he talks about hatred, he is here talking about antisemitism, an similar rules against hatred of various communities.

He does not think anti-terrorist legislation is a good basis for addressing the antisemitism he detects is too common in pro-Palestinian activity. He seems rather seems to think that anti-hatred legislation can be used to restrict such from demonstrations from occurring.

I think the problem with that approach is the first part of that concluding quote, "It should be possible for marches to be held against Israel’s actions in Gaza without hatred..." Maybe I've misunderstood, and he is not saying, ban all pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Maybe he is saying only ban those from organisers with a track record of failing to avoid antisemitism. But when he says the track-record of avoiding it is poor, he seems to be thinking of banning all of them. If that is what he is saying, I think it actually risks great anger that people do not have an a way of expressing their disquiet about something that troubles them much.

But maybe I have misunderstood, and this is capable of working, while giving people a realistic way of protesting about what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank. For I think many who wish to make that point also wish to avoid the hatred he refers, and he acknowledges that is possible.

He also mentions the high cost of having to defend against terrorist threats, that some have mentioned here.

"The alternative is higher and higher walls. A suspect community of Jews relying on volunteers and receiving government grants to strengthen security."

Indeed this is a terrible problem. Unfortunately, I'm not persuaded that his remedies will do much about it. I don't think what he says does succeed in avoiding the terrorism risk to the Jewish community in the context of a widespread perception of a massive injustice in Palestine. But maybe I have misunderstood and can be persuaded otherwise.

I also wonder a bit about some of the interim points he made. He makes the sensible point, I have repeatedly made, about the importance of distinguishing the actions of individuals, governments and groups from entire communities.

"The evils of Putin’s regime do not mean that we hate Russians. We distinguish between the people of Iran and the Ayatollahs. The Chinese people are not the Chinese Communist Party. There is a long-standing distinction between governments or states and people that reflects common humanity."

In particular, he recognises the risks of Islamophobia, etc.

"...the current UN Rapporteur on terrorism, Professor Ben Saul, has called on authorities to ensure that Muslim Australians and migrant communities are not stigmatized in debate."

But he seems to think that there is an asymmetry when it comes society avoiding the risks of antisemitism.

"But there is an exception to this rule. When it comes to demonstrations against Israel, we witness a delight in words that spread hatred incautiously. Hatred expressed to Zionists invites hostility to every Israeli and to Jews worldwide. Contrary to all good practice, Zionist is a term that invites stigma and othering. ... The silence from swathes of academia, and from rapporteurs, about the risk of stigmatizing Israelis and Jews is deafening."

Is that really true, that we are taking greater and stronger steps to Islamophobia than antisemitism? Certainly the recent West Midlands case is an example where something like that has happened. But it is an unusual and rare case. In the wider context, I would cite the recent processes to expunge antisemitism from the Labour Party (and I do agree that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone have suffered from a failure to understand what is antisemitism); I would cite the virulent Islamophobia of the right wing in today's politics. In this wider context, is it really true that there is a deafening silence in relation to trying to avoid antisemitism that is greater than our failures to avoid Islamophobia and other community hatreds? Or is it just that antisemitism has been so strongly discussed for so long that there isn't much new to say, so people don't. Whereas Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, etc, are the ones in the news because they are new issues and less fully worked out?

This was the speech I referenced a few posts up on Wednesday afternoon.

I think I'm being a bit dense though as I can't quite follow your argument. Are you suggesting antisemitism is being over-emphasised or under-emphasised compared to other hate crimes? It's not very clear to me if you agree or disagree with Hall.

Anyway, the Home Office stats might help.

This table below rather jumps out:
With the Jewish population of the UK around 0.5% and the Muslim population around 6.5%, we can see that hate crime against Muslims is a serious issue that should be addressed properly, however, hate crime against Jews is proportionately an order of magnitude worse. This is also evidenced by the extreme security measures that all Jewish venues (synagogues, schools, community and cultural centres etc) have to take all the time, compared to that of any other group of whatever type in the UK, and the fact that this is based on cold hard intelligence from the competent end of the police and security services.

Adding to the problem is that (as far as I can see - the data isn't very clear on this aspect so I'm open to evidenced correction), hate crime towards Muslims appears to be mostly from the usual suspects (i.e. from the far-right). Hate crime towards Jews also comes from there, but also from the far-left and from extreme Islamists. The latter makes it particularly problematic, since, as we seem to be seeing in the West Midlands, the police seem clueless in how to react when racist elements from one minority are bullying a smaller one. The police are so desperate not to appear Islamophobic that they are happy to throw Jews under the metaphorical bus to appease the local extremists. I don't think that this will end well unless urgent action is taken.

Si_B wrote: Fri Jan 16, 2026 1:27 pm This was the speech I referenced a few posts up on Wednesday afternoon.

I think I'm being a bit dense though as I can't quite follow your argument. Are you suggesting antisemitism is being over-emphasised or under-emphasised compared to other hate crimes? It's not very clear to me if you agree or disagree with Hall.

I didn't follow your link in that earlier post, because you were quoting only one very narrow and legally factual point from it. So I didn't realise what an interesting lecture I might find there.

I don't know whether I agree or disagree with Hall. There are a couple of places where I am rather sceptical. But in part this is because I don't understand enough about what he is thinking. So I expose these points for debate.

His main conclusion is that the correct approach to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations needs be based in anti-hate laws, not anti-terrorism laws. I certainly agree that using anti-terrorism laws is counter-productive, but I can't understand what he is proposing in relation to anti-hate laws and how that would be more successful. He recognises that it is OK to have pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which do not necessarily need to include hate aspects. So therefore it is logical to apply anti-hate laws to address the hate aspect. But I don't understand what he proposes. It seems that he is not suggesting arresting individuals when caught committing antisemitic acts, but rather banning demonstrations that will be antisemitic. I don't understand how you know that a demonstration will be antisemitic, because we do not clairvoyance. Is he proposing that all pro-Palestinian demonstrations are banned, because collectively they have a poor record of antisemitism? That sounds a bit like collective punishment, and a very heavy-handed approach to free speech. Or is he only proposing that organisers whose past demonstrations have a record of antisemitic aspects, should have their future demonstrations planned? Is he thinking the result of that is that the antisemitic aspects will thus be purges from pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and the people - for there are many in my belief - who wish to protest the treatment of Palestinians, and do it without antisemitism, can do so? Or is this just cover for banning pro-Palestinian demonstrations. If the latter, that's not going to work. People will protest and risk arrest, just as they are are currently. I think we need a much clearer statement of exactly what he might intend to understand, and what he thinks results, if we are to understand whether he really has a better approach to such issues.

He also thinks that doing this will help reduce the security requirements for Jewish community centres, etc. I find that a very surprising claim. I don't think eliminating antisemitism from pro-Palestinian demonstrations has much effect on the risk of such terrorist action. In fact, if there were a clampdown on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, I worry that the the effect would be pushing dissension underground and actually produce more terrorist incidents. But that may be an irrelevant worry if I have misunderstood the earlier part.

The other point where I sceptical was his suggestion that there is a lack of equity in the way we approach hate crimes towards different communities. I don't think this is to do with the quantity of hate incidents. I don't think a correct or incorrect approach to hate incidents is what is driving the quantity of them. We know that the quantity of antisemitic incidents has very unfortunately considerably increased since the Gaza War started. The sources behind your graphic did not enable me to get time series, broken down into different religions as they have in that table. But I did find this time series of anti-semitic incidents. But that is something of a distraction, this isn't about numbers, it is about equity of treatment. He is not necessarily claiming that lack of equity lies in the justice system, but in broader societal influence. In particular, he says, "The silence from swathes of academia, and from rapporteurs, about the risk of stigmatizing Israelis and Jews is deafening."

So I ask, is this really true. I think whether what goes on in pro-Palestine demonstrations, in part, is antisemitic, has been a very noisy topic we hear debated a lot. There are lively debates over what criticisms of the Israeli government are reasonable and what are antisemitic. I find no deafening silence on this. I find more silence on the the Islamophobia of right-wingers, which just seems increasingly to be accepted.

And we should remember that academia, for example, might be relatively silent on a topic because it already had that debate to exhaustion in the past, and there is nothing much new to say about it. One of my specialities, regulatory economics, continues to present difficult practical conundrums of policy for governments to solve. But hardly anyone in academia is working in that area any more, because it has said most of what could usefully be said about it some time ago.

So I am sceptical about this, but certainly haven't decided what I think about it.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply in detail. I understand your position more clearly now. Appreciated.

In the meantime events have moved on in Brum. I’m sure there will be more to say soon.

Well this just gets worse and worse for WM Police.

This relates to the supposedly critical meeting between Chief Inspector Mick Wilkinson and the Dutch police commanders.

The Times wrote: However, Wilkinson did not record or minute the meeting. He says he took a single handwritten note before transcribing it into an email more than a week later.

This email contained claims about the disorder in Amsterdam, which have since been exposed as false, among them the notion that Israelis staged a march and threw innocent people into a canal.

It was sent on the same day that Birmingham city council privately asked police for more evidence, admitting they needed a “clearer rationale” to back up a decision they had already made.

According to an official report conducted by the police inspectorate, Wilkinson then “disposed” of the note.

It is utterly unbelievable that a senior police officer could not understand the importance of proper record keeping. I'm pretty sure that this is drummed into new recruits from the very beginning of their training. As Sir Andy Cooke says, it is often mentioned in the College of Policing's authorised professional practice.

Anyone who has any professional experience in any aspect of the law should be fully aware of the importance of keeping contemporaneous documentation and ensuring a complete audit trail for everything (and destroying nothing). It's one of the most basic principles for maintaining the integrity of evidence that might later be important.

We should remember that the Dutch have subsequently described WM Police's interpretation of this meeting as "nonsensical".

If this is the professional standard of the WM Police, then the whole force needs a thorough investigation from top to bottom. At the best, this shows complete incompetence and a total failure of effective management at several levels. As I asked earlier, do they behave this unprofessionally in all cases or just when it involves Jews?

There seems to be sufficient prima facie evidence for the launch of miscounduct investigations against several of the culprits (up to and including the Chief Constable). Fortunately, the law has changed so that retiring or resigning does not stop that process if it is deemed necessary. Given this led to misleading Parliament, perhaps also criminal charges of misconduct in public office should be looked at?

The culture of WM Police looks particularly toxic, given the other allegations against it.

The Telegraph reports that West Midlands Police ‘ignored’ string of ‘hate crimes’ against Jews in Birmingham according to a leaked dossier.

The Times also has more information about the Chief Constable, alleging bullying. The fact that the person making this allegation received a six-figure payout from the force, suggests that there may be something to that as well.

Edit: Minor grammatical correction

Si_B wrote: Sun Jan 18, 2026 3:24 pm Well this just gets worse and worse for WM Police.

I don't think it can get much worse than using AI to generate "evidence" to support a policing decision - and consequenly basing decisions on hallucinations.

If it's being used like this at such a high level - you can be pretty sure that lower ranked officers are using it to guide criminal investigations. Probably most relevant to investigations involving public figures or perhaps campaign groups (people and organisations that AI LLMs will have stuff to say about).